Some workers who have soured on the 9-to-5 schedule are interested in trying "microshifting," which may offer greater flexibility and control over their time.
Any gains to claw back more profits will necessarily be adversarial and technically anti-capitalist.
Hmmm, not sure what you mean by the anti capitalist part here
Otherwise, I think I’m still stuck on how we’re dwelling on profit maximisation as the crux of capitalism. It may be the incentivising factor for the agents operating in the system … but is it the justification for committing to the system?
Where, as far as my ignorant mind goes, maximising the efficiency of the whole economy and/or its total productivity from the assets available … are the obvious justifications.
In which case, embracing a profit maximising ethos is a means to an end. And disrupting a particular profit process for the sake of the economy’s productivity perfectly justifiable as good capitalism.
It’s OK. I’m just describing these systems from a Marxist lens. As in, I’m not being prescriptive, but descriptive of how these processes work and their definitions. Your confusion is normal as there’s a lot of incentive to obfuscate to protect those with wealth and private property. It’s also not exactly simple either.
And to clarify what I meant, it was more anti-“people who own capital / owner” rather than anti-“capitalist system” exactly. The most anti capitalist system would be the workers themselves owning the tools, buildings, property, etc; collectively and with democratic control of the workplace. Obviously the above described where workers collectively bargain is closer in that direction but the capital owner still ultimately remains in control of the company and assets.
Hmmm, not sure what you mean by the anti capitalist part here
Otherwise, I think I’m still stuck on how we’re dwelling on profit maximisation as the crux of capitalism. It may be the incentivising factor for the agents operating in the system … but is it the justification for committing to the system?
Where, as far as my ignorant mind goes, maximising the efficiency of the whole economy and/or its total productivity from the assets available … are the obvious justifications.
In which case, embracing a profit maximising ethos is a means to an end. And disrupting a particular profit process for the sake of the economy’s productivity perfectly justifiable as good capitalism.
It’s OK. I’m just describing these systems from a Marxist lens. As in, I’m not being prescriptive, but descriptive of how these processes work and their definitions. Your confusion is normal as there’s a lot of incentive to obfuscate to protect those with wealth and private property. It’s also not exactly simple either.
And to clarify what I meant, it was more anti-“people who own capital / owner” rather than anti-“capitalist system” exactly. The most anti capitalist system would be the workers themselves owning the tools, buildings, property, etc; collectively and with democratic control of the workplace. Obviously the above described where workers collectively bargain is closer in that direction but the capital owner still ultimately remains in control of the company and assets.
aah … gotchya!
Cheers and thanks for the chat!